B. U. G. S.

Good work but one big question–why no mention of genocide? I thought the Bugser (Adelheim?) was going to set him up and build up to the genocide sucker punch but it never happened?

I’m only halfway through, and I notice the Anti-White was saying over and over again that the “Intermarriage is not being forced”.

I’ll continue listening to it to see if I see this later on, but there is a very simple phrase to deal with this I would like to see next time, and ANYTIME an Anti-White claims Intermarriage is not forced:

Nobody has to ENFORCE the Interrmarriage. They ENFORCE the conditions which lead to Interrmarriage.

Towards the end of the debate around the 1 hour mark, the anti-white just repeated so what if whites become a minority.

The anti-white also says, around 01:07 ,  that it was both liberals and conservatives that opened Europe to non-white immigration, which fits in perfectly with the message of the mantra.

“Liberals and respectable conservatives both agree”.

Adelheim did Very well IMHO, and valuably, he avoided tailgating and falling for tricks.

He did definitely get to the point that forcing Whites to accept non-Whites in all our communities and then calling those who have a problem with Intermarriage Racists.

When we critique this let’s keep in mind that all in all he did a VERY GOOD JOB, and toward the end the Anti-White was saying “who cares if Whites become a minority”?

Anything we say here is simply a suggestion to add for next time he or any of us are in such a situation, to have a simple tool to add in next time.

I cannot sum up in words here all he did correct. I have a feeling a huge sum of the Audience can see through the BS now, and view the Anti-White as just that.

There are my suggestions for next time:

Slightly more concise version of: “The Anti-Whites don’t need to Enfore Intermarriage, the Enforce the conditions that lead to Intermarriage“, and Hitting the word “Genocide” and working in the concepts of how International law defines Genocide more too.

This is sort of like the players all sitting down and reviewing a post game video of the game, to see what can be done to improve.

The overall feeling I got listening to it was the Anti-White being exlposed as an Anti-White.

hm first you should do in a debate is to give an overview of the situation, make your case (with the same points as the main mantra). Just like Adelheim did. That way its easier to people to understand, you give your point across early on and you can refer to it at later point.

During the debate you should expose your opponents intentions. Adelheim did this nicely as well by pointing out many times that everything he said always leads to a world without any white people. He could have added that the antiwhite was not denying white genocide, he was justifying it.

you can also be passive offensive and point out the opponents contradictions. “Well you say that everyone is equal and that diversity is good, but why is it that Whites are not included in this ‘equality’ as you want to genocide them and how can you have ‘diversity’ in a melting pot? Sorry but it doesn’t make any sense. It sounds ridiculous actually LOL”

Just make fun of them, dont take them dead serious. Also be on the offensive. They are the ones doing the explaining as well. Don’t let them lead the conversation or make you “define” things for them. Claim the moral highground.

When the anti-white asked Adelheim (cant remember what exactly) he said something about “i believe everyone have the right to exist including white people” he could have been more passive offensive by saying something like: “I just don’t agree that Whites should die out”. etc

Might be good to make a conclusion at the end if possible. Make a point about “it’s funny how everything they say always lead to a world without any white people. They say they are anti-racists but I guess what they really are is anti-white. Thanks for the debate though. Cheers.” or something.

Like i said i would most likely not have done it better than Adelheim since its much harder live. But i take this opportunity to learn from it.

Good job Adelheim! You’re my hero of the day!

Adelheim,

I wanted to add a couple of thoughts too.

First, I think you did a GREAT job.  You forced your opponent to admit that he supports policies that will lead to a future with no white children.  That is all we have to do to wake the sleeping Titan.

One of my favorite things that you did was that you said something like “How do you think that makes White people feel?”

Whites must call out these anti-white hypocrites who pretend to care so much for peoples “feelings” and “dignity” on their callous disregard for the feelings of our white children.  It can be painful to show vulnerability but you did it masterfully!  Thank you so much.

One minor thing that I would have done differently is this.  At one point, he asked you what would be so wrong if Whites become a minority.  If I remember correctly, you responded with the most important point, which is that if you force assimilate a minority, you are exterminating them and that’s genocide.

But you might have added that he himself has already said that it is highly disadvantageous to be a minority.  He has dedicated his life to fighting “racism”, which he claims is a scourge that afflicts minorities and only minorities.  Moreover, he wishes to impose the burdens of being a minority on White children in ALL white countries.  Therefore, he clearly does not care for their well-being.

Anyway, this is really a minor point because the most important thing is that you brought it back to White genocide.

I also take a different point of view on your tone.  Most posters seem to think you should have been more aggressive and maybe that’s true, but I’m not so sure.  Privot was being conciliatory and you might have come across as the bad guy if you had taken a more hostile tone.

Thanks again so much for doing this!

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Great job Adelheim!

Any other debates in the works? A Bugster chat room would be great to listen to when training for a debate.